Iain Duncan Smith and his porkie pies

Today Iain Duncan was invited to the Sunday Politics show and quizzed by Andrew Neil on the Universal Credits new benefits system. Now if you were to take this interview and listen just to what IDS was saying you would of thought the UC idea was all his own, he Implemented it and with the help of some outside experts he brought it all was fine and dandy. However, the reality is there is a lot more history to this than what he is saying. The words which came out of IDS' mouth were as close to telling porky pies and you can get. It is as if IDS has got Korsakov's syndrome and doesn't know the true facts of what has happened before. He even makes it sound as if the reset for UC was all of his idea and he was the one behind it because he decided the Big Bang of UC was not going to work as it was the old traditional way.  Why is it the Secretary of State for the Department of Social Security can say these things and think the world is naive and believe everything he says.  For it is just a matter of a few clicks on the internet and there you can find the true reasons about what happened. The turning point and reset can all be put down to a rather embarrassing grilling at a Public Accounts Committee meeting, and the many other meetings since have all brought to the surface a lot of disturbing facts about the costs of UC, the maladministration and the poor management headed by IDS himself.

Points of interest

The write off, of IT costs at the start it was £37 million now it has risen to £697 million.
The current claimant figure of 40,000 when it should of been one million by 2014.
The fact only simple claims (single claimants) can be done automatically.
Claimants get paid on a monthly basis with the emphasis of payments direct to claimant.
The frightening prospect of UC being rolled out to families shortly.
Mainstay allegation that UC would ensure people in work are better off - not true.
Grievous doubts held by the Major Project Authority over the entire UC program.
UC now becoming a tool to help government reduce the Welfare Benefits bill.
The DWP now have £2 billion reduction in costs since 2010 - at what other costs?
JSA claimants now have a 7 day waiting period than a 3 day waiting period till entitlement begins.
IDS believes the Welfare Benefits bill has been reduced by £6 billion over the parliament - not true.
The OBR yearly Welfare Benefits projects since this government has been lower than the actual spend.
Those of working age and in work claim more in benefits than those out of work.
A factor in the fall of unemployment is the increased use of sanctions (also reducing the benefit bill).
Welfare benefits are subsidising those workers on low wages or minimum pay.
Single people are expected to live in a shared accommodation until the age of 35.

The march onwards of doomed UC continues, as the DWP have released dates for new tranches of Job Centre Plus where claims can be made. The death-trap to this is related to the dates. They are after the general election, effectively whatever government is in power will either stick with them or have to make a radical decision in a short period of time. In the meantime we see IDS yet again being interviewed on the Andrew Marr show (15.02.15.) during which it can be witnessed IDS gives away his "tells" each time he states something he doesn't believe in. Or simply, to put it pretty bluntly a lie. He has sharp intakes of breath and frogs in his throat. When I see him talk it is a person who is divorced from reality, a person who does not have any connection at all with poverty, someone who has in many respects had a charmed life. A complete hypocrite.  He stated UC had saved 600 million, he of course was not asked any difficult questions because Andrew Marr is a pussy of an interviewer who should seek a job writing children's stories rather than hard core political interrogation, he is not up to the job. But the BBC is too polite to give Andy the boot, possibly on account of a sympathy vote which is unspoken but tacitly recognisable.

Only if we are lucky will the Tory speed march to economic doom will be allowed to continue. If there was a god it would be time to pray, but there isn't, it's better to spend your efforts on lottery tickets. Things will continue to get worse in the UK and there is not a single political party with enough forward out of the box thinking able to take us out of it.  As for IDS, just maybe in a few months he will not be on the front bench, mind I'm sure he would do well keeping one of the shadow or back benches warm. Getting all twisted up inside as his record on UC is examined in greater detail or as the changes destroy more lives. This may seem pessimistic, but watch this space.

Change, death and taxes - guess what can be avoided

I was of the mind these three things were immutable to life, unless you happened to be a gold fish. In which case as doing yet another circuit of your pretty bowl it would all be all seem new again no matter what time of day, due to the existence of an exceedingly short term memory. It was the not very honourable head up his own arse Georgie porgie Osborne who made a budget speech saying he intended to clamp down on tax avoidance schemes.  As though startled I recall looking up thinking to myself well that sounded interesting, considering most of his rich friends are probably running those schemes. Or perhaps it was a measure which was going to bring in millions of tax revenues from the likes of Google, Apple, Starbucks or Amazon.  Well whatever it was the home front news on tax income from these very wealthy companies is about as informative as the amount of tax they pay.  Not much at all.  In fact the creation of the General Anti Avoidance Rule (GAAR) may be of benefit to the many tax dodgers there are because it defines in such narrow ways what is an unacceptable avoidance in paying fare tax.  It's wonderful. Every fat cat company with a few bob in its pocket can now ensure they are rightfully dodging the bullet of tax.  Tax which pays the welfare bill, tax which should be funding schools, paying for the NHS or building better efficient infrastructure stays again in the swelling pockets of the wealthy.

In a similar vein Barak Obama has now decided to get real tough with the multinational corporations who are registered in Luxemburge or anywhere else. He is saying they will be liable for 14% tax on profits made in the US.  Again at first sound this comes across and a good idea, whether it will work in reality is another thing. I'm sure those companies will have multiple smoke and mirror strategies to hide away the profit they make. The wonderful phrase "creative accounting" pops in mind. Something mere mortals of the taxpaying world do not know anything about. The news reported the US could have an additional income of $238 billion if Obama's strategy works. 

In the meantime the UK with it's offshore crown dependencies has still is unable to lock the safe door and grab back what belongs to the people.  This is infuriating, nearly British Islands hold billions in money of which a proportion should of been put back in our very own coiffures. You could say there is an engendered arrogance the rich and multinationals now have. For money can be transferred around the world at the touch of a button and if you have enough of it it doesn't matter where you live most of the year as long as you own a passport to a country where they turn a blind eye and genuflect at your feet.

Death can not be avoided, change is inevitable but taxes the rich and ultra rich can now safely say are a thing of the past and not applicable to them.

The Rich they don't just screw each other they screw the poor as well

The working classes and the poor of the UK are becoming poorer. There are several factors which take place in this, a recession which inevitably makes those with little have even less. A government who's only fiscal policy out of this recession is to cut back spending on the essential items which should not be cut back on. Fire brigade, the NHS, education, welfare benefits for the needy and vulnerable and the reduction of taxes for the rich.  When the top one per cent of wealth in the UK is not trickling down, a fallacy held since the oppressive Thatcherite government of the 1980s. So as a consequence the Rich are getting Richer and Richer. It is beginning to feel like we have stepped back in time by two hundred years. Where if you were born poor your life would be in continuous servitude to the wealthy people, which was a reality in Britain while the Empire built up it was not working classes who had their income, working conditions or general living conditions improve, it was the working classes who served and died for the rich in society.  When countries of the world hold memories of colonial rule, it is the rule of the British they generally refer to (though not all) but of the British it was not the general public who were colonialists it was the upper echelons of the
society.  So now for the last 40 years the poor people are viewed as the poor stupid people of the UK, their previous aspirations of equality and moving up the imaginary ladder of society have been sucked away by the leeches (Rich people) of society. Yet this is not just a British phenomenon for it is now said the top 85 riches people in the world own 50 percent of the world's wealth.

If my life can not be realised by equality, if I am going to be considered a non entity in this world to genuflect to the Rich and politicians who do not represent me then I have no voice. What have I to lose?  If I will see those I love sucked in to deprivation and poverty and know they are worthy of more, are capable of more but are never given the opportunity for the word opportunity has been hijacked by the elite, then what is to be done?  These persons who own the world I will never know and they have no care my my kin or class. Those who have not worked and got dirty hands.  The rich, the super rich, the aristocrats, bankers, accountants, tax dodging and tax avoiding, money grabbing arse-holes. How am I to react?  My discontent will get stronger, my anger once tempered will raise itself and not be held down. If I am not a lone individual and the 99 per cent population get to feel this way the revolution has already began. This is when the world could flip and be aware whoever you are for things may change and they will not be the same again.

The difference between the rich and the poor has gotten so wide middle classes are being  pushed into extinction. They to feel discontent. With the 99 per centers now in a state of recognising this the world has got to change. I hope it does, I don't prey but were I a believer I'd prey it changes. For otherwise not too far in the distant future this place we call a country will be fractured and chaotic. If the 1 per centers do not get on side and see their own existence could be at risk to stay in gluttony they will become victims of an almighty backlash. One which will be like a tsunami, it will reverberate everywhere. The rich get richer the poor poorer and this world can not sustain it, not in any way. Something must change.

Je suis Charlie

Je Suis Charlie

This is to all those fundamentalists who misguidedly think murdering innocent people justifies their beliefs to take away the freedom of others. 

If we acted the same way as the fundamentalists they'd never be allowed an opinion, so why should they impose their opinion on the rest of us?

And another message from the freedom to live and express oneself which Europeans believe in.

Fuck You.

In Uganda you better not be gay

The president of Uganda believes being gay is a learnt process, it is not a genetic thing, people are taught to be gay. Which in the twenty first century sounds like he has come out of a time machine from the eighteenth century. However, it is not all his own fault. For Uganda has become a backward society. This is the road of countries which become religiously conservative. Those who follow scripture in relation to their own interpretation.  Little do they actually know that Jesus was gay. 

The last supper is the place where it all ended or where it all began,  because you really have to to ask yourself why is it Jesus has around him a load of disciples and they are all men. It is salient.   Because if he were a normal heterosexual there would of  been a fifty to fifty mix of female and male disciples. What was the reason for picking a load of fellas. It can only be because he was homosexual. In normal religious text you would hope gender was an irrelevant issue. Both men and women  being treated in  a similar fashion.  This is not however true. The stories are in relation to male disciples, it is always males who take the major roles. You have got to ask is there something fishy going on here. In my opinion there is, something very odd about the whole situation.

In a TV interview with a leading LBGT advocate in Uganda, it was pointed out the country had been invaded by American Christian fundamentalists. They were repeating the same line of crap and this had now insidiously invested the Ugandan population. Previously violence against LBGT people had not been part of the normal Ugandan reaction. However, now things had changed. Uganda is behind with the times because it is one of the African countries which does not have the same educational system, the same historical fight against the terrors of extremism. As in fact every African country is to some degree under developed. They still need another two to three hundred years of civilization to hopefully come out of ignorance and into light. While the western world still develops. Unfortunatly if you are gay or lesbian or bisexual or undergoing transgender changes life will remain a tragic and tough environment.  Where life could mean death.

Now if only the second coming were to take place, right in the middle of Uganda, and a wonderful GAY Jesus were to spew down on the fundamentalists the damnation of hell they deserve, then the world would right itself. Oh shit, there is no such thing as hell now, is there?

Andrew Marr the weak interviewer

There is nothing worse than a weak interviewer, one who it appears just wants to be friends with the person in the hot chair.  The so called hot chair then becomes tepid.  A great example of a tough interviewer is Jeremy Paxman, it is only a great shame he no longer does newsnight and it is our loss. On the other hand one of the weakest running interviewers is Andrew Mar.  I don't know if it is out of sympathy the BBC still keep him on, and still have a political program with his name, and his program should be a hell of a lot better than it is, but it's not.  I watch it and each time I do I get further disappointed at yet another opportunity lost. Another chance to really stick it to a politician and get a response. You can see them all lining up to be on his program because he is the easiest interviewer to have, we got a teddy bear when we need a shark.  There is no doubt this man is learned but he just does not have the ability to be cut throat in a cut throat political environment.  He must know all about false logical arguments but he doesn't use what he knows, he is a historian and yet he does not bring into play his knowledge base. How can a political program survive if it is not willing to go beyond the boundaries of niceness? In the case of Marr's show there must be someone in a powerful position who likes him.  For all intent and purpose this man needs to retire, or take on an alternative supporting roll. Perhaps as a political advisor, yes yet another one.  Then just maybe the job will be given to an interviewer who has guts.  BBC put this man out to pastures, green, gentle and away from what should be a gladiators arena, I'm sure he could handle a nice field somewhere.

Labour will lose Scotland

Today I saw a short interview with a Scottish Labour MP Jim Murphy and Andrew Marr it was by all intent a travesty to see Jim Murphy unable to accept Labour have lost Scotland. And they certainly have in mind and heart.  The reason behind this is their failure to emphasise the follow up to winning the No vote to independence.  Ed Miliband should of been in Scotland and telling the people exactly what he intends to do to support Scotland in the future, he should of spent time listening to their concerns and then formulating a firm Labour commitment to Scotland. He has not.  Jim stated the obvious, there were 2 million Scots who voted No and it is the Yes campaign who have taken it upon themselves to own the streets. It is like he doesn't understand why they would be on the streets.  So now the papers say Labour are going to lose Scotland, they will lose it bad and this will mean they can not rule in Parliament.  Not only have they lost Scotland they already have lost the next election and doomed it to a another hung parliament.  As Andrew remarked there are now 80,000 SNP members now, it is the biggest party in the country.  Jim has misread the lay of the land, he'll not be around after May 2015 and will live to regret it.  Given we are so close to an election he should of become the black sheep of the Labour party, he should of said Yes to independence and his metal would of been shown, instead Jim is a sheep, just like many MPs are.

Ed Milliband does not instil confidence in me, personally I don't think he should of been the leader of the Labour party, his brother would of been a better choice.  As for Scotland, it's as though he has no attachment to Scotland, I have not seen him in any interview talk about Scotland.  His profile in Scotland in non existent. So I don't know why it is he and his Labour party have taken such a broad assumption of winning 35 per cent of seats in Scotland. It is not going to happen.

The referendum in Scotland was as Alex Salmond said one which had been balanced on fear. The fear factor for pensioners.  In particular it was Gordon Brown who threw in the bucket this point. He rammed it home every time he was on TV, stating how pensions could never be guaranteed in Scotland if they voted Yes. As such he also became a representative of Labour in Scotland. The real problem for the Labour party on this issue is they were on a no winner from the start. The entire issue to them was a poison pill.  The only way they could of maintained any kind of influence would of been by keeping a neutral stand or saying Scottish people should of voted Yes. Maybe both of these views were not in their vocabulary. Yet, come May 2015 they will get a chance to feel it. Fundamentally labour will have to completely change their philosophy.  For some bland reason Miliband is trumping up the introduction of a new Lords, which he would call a Senate. This may very well be an important point, but it is not going to be a game changer and right now this is exactly what Labour need.

Scotland will be lost for Labour, and there is very shakey ground for the Tories taking a majority because their sleeping partners are about to be kicked into the long grass. For popping his head up and being quite often heard is Farage, who doesn't really care much at all for Scotland at all.  So the Scots have got to look after themselves they have to vote SNP and continue to the goal of independence which may not be decades away, well maybe one but not two.